Re: HDF, netCDF, etc question

[Craig Markwardt <craigmnet(at)cow.physics.wisc.edu>]

ronn kling <ronn@rlkling.com> writes:

> Hi All,
> 
> Which format would be best for a large number of large sequential images
> along with  ancillary data such as field of view, exposure time, etc?
> Discrimators would be things like speed in reading them in, ease to pull out
> the images and information.
> 
> I don't have a lot of experience with these things so any and all opinions
> are welcomed.

Hi Ronn--

A similar question to this was asked a few months ago.  No really deep
technical discussions ensued, but this was the gist of it:

* I advocated astronomy's FITS format.  Plus: platform independent,
  metadata is in ASCII, good support in IDL Astronomy Library.  Minus:
  seen as "archane."

* I also advocated IDL SAVE files.  With my library you can read and
  write SAVE files sequentially like any other file.  Plus: native to
  IDL. Minus: tied to IDL.

* Many people seem to swear by Liam Gumley's binary tools.  Plus: raw
  speed and direct access; platform neutral. Minus: low level.

* Martin Schultz advocated GRIB, half tongue in cheek.

As I said, no real answers came out of this, but at least it may give
you some other ideas.

Craig

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D.         EMAIL:    craigmnet@cow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------